How do you think a 5,200 rpm 1TB laptop drive would fare?

[glitchrock-buddha]

In a macbook pro to be specific...

For example the new Western Digital drive:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822136545

I've always found 5,400 to be fine, but not sure I'd want to go lower. thoughts?

[beats me]

I'd wait. I think 1T 7200RPM drives aren't too far around the corner.

[glitchrock-buddha]

I don't even think I'd want a 7,200 rpm drive. It's just more power consumption and heat than a 5,400 and the 5,400's seem to perform just fine.

So I'm wondering if the 5,400 1TB drives are just around the corner too? (Perhaps in standard 9.5" rather than 12") Or is 5,200 the new 5,400? hmmm....

[dothedru22]

Umm no. The new 7200 rpm laptop drives actually produce less heat and less power than the that old stinker you have in your mac book.

[jimyson]

From what I've read anything over the 500 GB mark for WD uses 3 plates inside the drive instead of 2. Thus creating more heat, noise and higher power consumption. If you're ok with this and others have used it with success then go for it.

[glitchrock-buddha]

Umm no. The new 7200 rpm laptop drives actually produce less heat and less power than the that old stinker you have in your mac book.

7,200 rpm drives are quieter and use less power than my 500gb 5,400 rpm drive in my macboo pro? Really? Mines quieter than a mouse. I'll assume you're talking about 7,200 rpm 500gb drives here since 7,200 rpm 1TB laptop drives don't exist yet at 12" or under. So all things being equal, a 7,200 rpm drive will be quieter than a 5,400 rpm drive of the same size? (500gb). Strange theory. I don't think I buy it. It's not even been a year since mine came out, I can't see it changing that drastically.

[hacktheplanet]

My 7200 is fine. I don't notice much difference between it and the 5400 I upgraded from. It's a 500gb, if that makes a difference.
However, don't rely solely on spindle speed to select a drive, benchmarks are way better. Many benchmarks I've seen have some 7200s only a few mb/s faster than 5400s in the same product range, and other 7200s actually slower than 5400s (different product ranges, of course) As always, YMMV.

Just check benchmarks and make sure you're getting the best deal. Here's a good source, but you can just google "laptop hard drive benchmarks" http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2.5- ... e,675.html

[Tarekith]

I've never had disk errors with my 5400 drive, it always seems to keep up with the rest of the laptop, so I've never felt the need to go 7200.

[glitchrock-buddha]

I've never had disk errors with my 5400 drive, it always seems to keep up with the rest of the laptop, so I've never felt the need to go 7200.

Exactly. I've never, not once had a problem with a 5,400 rpm drive.

The question I'm wondering about though is how would the western digital 5,200 be... Not sure if there are benchmarks. Can't find anything in a search. Maybe it's too new. Or my google-fu is stinking today.

[leedsquietman]

I have a 5400 rpm WD SATA drive in my laptop and given that I stream audio from a seperate USB 2.0 drive, I find it copes fine with the projects I need and I've done projects with more than 80 tracks and multiple plugins with my laptop.

I had a 7200 EIDE drive in my previous laptop and that performed less well.

[hacktheplanet]

I have a 5400 rpm WD SATA drive in my laptop and given that I stream audio from a seperate USB 2.0 drive, I find it copes fine with the projects I need and I've done projects with more than 80 tracks and multiple plugins with my laptop.

I had a 7200 EIDE drive in my previous laptop and that performed less well.

Well, SATA is way faster than EIDE.

[leedsquietman]

fo sho

[SubFunk]

I've never had disk errors with my 5400 drive, it always seems to keep up with the rest of the laptop, so I've never felt the need to go 7200.

me too, i had real concerns when i got mine, but never had a problem... my externals are all 7200rpm drives, though... again the difference i feel more if i run them via eSATA (super fast) or USB (super slow)

but i would wait a little bit with a new product, i think the overall performance of a drive is not just determined by the spindle speed...
i am by no means an IT specialist, but i recall that many people said that the first generation of 2.5" 500gb drives where way slower then the 320gb drives with the same rpm that have been around... so i would wait for some tests.

besides i would never buy a WD drive, never ever for audio... just see the resent thread around here about WD... i had the same experience... for me seagate all the way. (and previous maxtor, which now belongs to seagate) samsung are not to shabby either, they are quiet, but seagate are i think the quietest drives, and that is very important for audio machines... at least to me... even the quiet drives are a nightmare if you have 4 - 5 sitting of them on your desk...

[glitchrock-buddha]

besides i would never buy a WD drive, never ever for audio... just see the resent thread around here about WD... i had the same experience... for me seagate all the way. (and previous maxtor, which now belongs to seagate) samsung are not to shabby either, they are quiet, but seagate are i think the quietest drives, and that is very important for audio machines...

hmmm, interesting. I had a WD drive a couple years ago in my former mbp and didn't mind it. They say this new one is ultra quiet as well due to some fancy new technology. Does seagate have a 1TB on the way? I guess they will soon either way.

[Donnie]

Honestly a straight 5400rpm to 7200rpm comparison isnt exactly fair, there are a lot more factors to be considered. Not all drives are equal in terms of speed, quality, buffer size, etc. Not to mention drives with a smaller capacity will often outperform larger capacity drives.

Websites like Toms Hardware (for example) will give you a better portrayal of REAL drive performance through testing.

Although you can get away with a 5400 rpm drive in an audio computer, a comparable 7200 drive will easily outperform. Of course it depends what you do, some people may not notice it...to others night and day.

I personally prefer a smaller better performing drive over a large doggy drive. Then I use an external drive for bulk storage, and when I want speed there I use my eSATA connection. Typically from what ive seen going over a 320gb capacity will yield a performance decrease, so thats what I max my internal drives out at. Naturally, the observed results are dependant on the users demands...but for some these will be very noticable differences.